TY - JOUR
T1 - How well do crop modeling groups predict wheat phenology, given calibration data from the target population?
AU - Wallach, Daniel
AU - Palosuo, Taru
AU - Thorburn, Peter
AU - Gourdain, Emmanuelle
AU - Asseng, Senthold
AU - Basso, Bruno
AU - Buis, Samuel
AU - Crout, Neil
AU - Dibari, Camilla
AU - Dumont, Benjamin
AU - Ferrise, Roberto
AU - Gaiser, Thomas
AU - Garcia, Cécile
AU - Gayler, Sebastian
AU - Ghahramani, Afshin
AU - Hochman, Zvi
AU - Hoek, Steven
AU - Hoogenboom, Gerrit
AU - Horan, Heidi
AU - Huang, Mingxia
AU - Jabloun, Mohamed
AU - Jing, Qi
AU - Justes, Eric
AU - Kersebaum, Kurt Christian
AU - Klosterhalfen, Anne
AU - Launay, Marie
AU - Luo, Qunying
AU - Maestrini, Bernardo
AU - Mielenz, Henrike
AU - Moriondo, Marco
AU - Nariman Zadeh, Hasti
AU - Olesen, Jørgen Eivind
AU - Poyda, Arne
AU - Priesack, Eckart
AU - Pullens, Johannes Wilhelmus Maria
AU - Qian, Budong
AU - Schütze, Niels
AU - Shelia, Vakhtang
AU - Souissi, Amir
AU - Specka, Xenia
AU - Srivastava, Amit Kumar
AU - Stella, Tommaso
AU - Streck, Thilo
AU - Trombi, Giacomo
AU - Wallor, Evelyn
AU - Wang, Jing
AU - Weber, Tobias K.D.
AU - Weihermüller, Lutz
AU - de Wit, Allard
AU - Wöhling, Thomas
AU - Xiao, Liujun
AU - Zhao, Chuang
AU - Zhu, Yan
AU - Seidel, Sabine J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Predicting phenology is essential for adapting varieties to different environmental conditions and for crop management. Therefore, it is important to evaluate how well different crop modeling groups can predict phenology. Multiple evaluation studies have been previously published, but it is still difficult to generalize the findings from such studies since they often test some specific aspect of extrapolation to new conditions, or do not test on data that is truly independent of the data used for calibration. In this study, we analyzed the prediction of wheat phenology in Northern France under observed weather and current management, which is a problem of practical importance for wheat management. The results of 27 modeling groups are evaluated, where modeling group encompasses model structure, i.e. the model equations, the calibration method and the values of those parameters not affected by calibration. The data for calibration and evaluation are sampled from the same target population, thus extrapolation is limited. The calibration and evaluation data have neither year nor site in common, to guarantee rigorous evaluation of prediction for new weather and sites. The best modeling groups, and also the mean and median of the simulations, have a mean absolute error (MAE) of about 3 days, which is comparable to the measurement error. Almost all models do better than using average number of days or average sum of degree days to predict phenology. On the other hand, there are important differences between modeling groups, due to model structural differences and to differences between groups using the same model structure, which emphasizes that model structure alone does not completely determine prediction accuracy. In addition to providing information for our specific environments and varieties, these results are a useful contribution to a knowledge base of how well modeling groups can predict phenology, when provided with calibration data from the target population.
AB - Predicting phenology is essential for adapting varieties to different environmental conditions and for crop management. Therefore, it is important to evaluate how well different crop modeling groups can predict phenology. Multiple evaluation studies have been previously published, but it is still difficult to generalize the findings from such studies since they often test some specific aspect of extrapolation to new conditions, or do not test on data that is truly independent of the data used for calibration. In this study, we analyzed the prediction of wheat phenology in Northern France under observed weather and current management, which is a problem of practical importance for wheat management. The results of 27 modeling groups are evaluated, where modeling group encompasses model structure, i.e. the model equations, the calibration method and the values of those parameters not affected by calibration. The data for calibration and evaluation are sampled from the same target population, thus extrapolation is limited. The calibration and evaluation data have neither year nor site in common, to guarantee rigorous evaluation of prediction for new weather and sites. The best modeling groups, and also the mean and median of the simulations, have a mean absolute error (MAE) of about 3 days, which is comparable to the measurement error. Almost all models do better than using average number of days or average sum of degree days to predict phenology. On the other hand, there are important differences between modeling groups, due to model structural differences and to differences between groups using the same model structure, which emphasizes that model structure alone does not completely determine prediction accuracy. In addition to providing information for our specific environments and varieties, these results are a useful contribution to a knowledge base of how well modeling groups can predict phenology, when provided with calibration data from the target population.
KW - Crop model
KW - Model evaluation
KW - Phenology prediction
KW - Wheat
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098937603&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eja.2020.126195
DO - 10.1016/j.eja.2020.126195
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85098937603
SN - 1161-0301
VL - 124
JO - European Journal of Agronomy
JF - European Journal of Agronomy
M1 - 126195
ER -